0912200736.A26296@mindstalk.net> <009001c1503e$0d04d720$31165e0c@flrjs> <3BC2563B.E839A6B6@objectent.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Samantha Atkins wrote:
> John Clark wrote:
> > Damien Sullivan <email@example.com> Wrote:
> > >Moslem countries were historically more tolerant of other religions than
> > >Christian Europe
> > Until about 100 years ago that was absolutely 100% true. Since then their
> > particular franchise of idiotic has been the bane of the civilized world.
> Perhaps you should consider the claim that it was roughly 80
> years ago when the Arab world started feeling massively
> interfered with by the West. The time would be about right. Or
> do you believe a 1400 yr old religion just took a turn for the
> worse for no reason at all?
80-100 years ago, the Saudi family was conducting it's campaign of
consolidation of the Arabian Penninsula, while being supported by an
upstart sect known as Wahhabis, who took over control of Mecca and
Medina when the Sauds ejected the Husseini caliphate from those cities.
Since that time, the vast majority of the clerical posts of the worlds
mosques have been taken over by Wahhabis.
> I would also point out that the Arab world was much more
> "civilized" when the west was still largely barbaric. We tend
> to forget these things and see only the perspective of today and
> only a small part of that.
Yes, they were once quite advanced. So was China, and Pakistan, and
Iraq, if only you go back far enough. This does not mean that the
current governments in those areas have any basis for being considered
civilized, enlightened, or having any respect for human rights. Nations
that insist on being treated with respect because of their long dead
history while shuffling their present misdeeds under the rug contribute
nothing to truth, progress, or an extropian future, and doing the moral
relativity game with respect to them on such a basis fails in
contributing as well.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:12 MDT